Friday, 28 September 2012

This is what you get when Maylene and the
Sons of Disaster deconsecrate and doom up via Eyehategod and Grief and lose the
Goo Goo Dolls. There are a few lyrical missteps along the way but then again
not every musician can be a poet, right? Nevertheless this is a mix up of southern
boogie, southern harmony and southern sludge that recalls Acid Bath in its
articulation of light and shade through melody and brutality. I’m Down…

Tis the season for tech-death, no? I know I slept on this release but I have to cop to plain bias: the name screamed "deathcore, deathcore, deathcore". And then I listened. Wild, dark, blackened death with some jazz inflected Faceless-isms, loads of leads, twists and turns peppered with the rhythmic ferocity of latter day, post-Kill Cannibal Corpse. That'll learn me.

Thursday, 6 September 2012

Many years ago now when I
had just crested a culture shock milestone in Japan I wrote a paper borrowing
heavily on Deleuzian thought about becoming other. My main point then as is
now, is that we are already always "dirty" with the other that we
wish to/struggle against become/becoming. Further, my contention is that the
extent to which we become the other is only limited by imaginative capacity.
Which is not to say that by living in some kind of psychotic fantasy land I can
somehow become "black" or "woman". Rather, the point is
that the extent to which we can utilise imaginative, empathic, sympathetic and
cognitive capacity allows us the opportunity to subtly and sometimes
drastically redistribute the coordinates of our identities.

What I meant when I said
"I was turning Japanese" was that certain models, concepts and images
of Japanese-ness (language and culture) were burned away as I gained linguistic
(oral, literacy) agency. I could no longer entertain "gaijin"
stereotypes of Japan and felt my proximity to Japanese cultural behaviours
shift. I did not suddenly feel like a bow master or even particularly adept at
some of the more ritualistic aspects of communication (indeed, I struggled
against them at times). In other words, I did not feel like I was authentically
Japanese. However, critically, I did not feel in-authentically Japanese.
As an originally monolingual descendent of the Anglo-sphere colonial expansion
I have clear racial markers as well as an accent which at times (not always)
re-positions me within a context of being non-Japanese. Then there is the issue
that has come to a head for me recently: my affection for my original civic
allegiance (Australian) has been abruptly (reality) checked as I spend
significant time in my birthplace. Indeed, I feel more of an immigrant here
than I do in Japan.

Until returning to Australia,
I never felt particularly compelled to concretise my Japanese residency status
nor even think particularly seriously about citizenship and naturalisation.
However, on return to Australia, on witnessing a society that has moved on and
in directions I could not have anticipated, I am starting to feel more at home
back in Japan. Part of this is to do with being unemployed and part of it is to
do with the distance I now live from the familial and friendship context I have
established over the last ten years in my second (now primary) home.

Meanwhile this morning I
came across Colin PA Jones' article Our mixed-race children deserve betterthan this, so why bother with Japan?. Jones raises a number of interesting
points related to belonging and the legalities of citizenship for children of
multicultural families in Japan. However, Jones, like other writers fails to
fully exercise his imaginative capacity in terms of constructing an identity of
belonging. His identity as a non-Japanese, is while more nuanced than that of Debito or Loco, still trapped in the concept of "foreigner". His
argument this time in consonance with Debito positions the identity of a
foreigner as somehow fixed and lacking in legal rights in comparison to
Japanese. And in this he is correct. However, Jones fails to exceed this well
worn discourse by failing to engage with the possibility that Japanese
citizenship (via naturalisation) may actually be a desirable goal to obtain.
Put simply, it is one thing to crusade for the rights of foreigners as
transients but what of the battle for those others who decide to embrace the
host culture. On this matter he is clear: he can only for whatever personal,
ethical and philosophical reasons remain Japanese. I do not feel this way.

Jones' critique
unfortunately rests in the position that a Japanese identity for a non-Japanese
is somehow undesirable and intrinsically inferior to that of certain privileged
Western, Anglo-sphere civic identity formations. Further he promotes certain
grey area methods of civic belonging (keep both passports and keep your mouth
shut) where as in reality there are many possibilities open to children of
multicultural Japanese families which are no doubt being experimented with by a statistically small yet nevertheless significant number of multicultural
families throughout Japan.

For the Anglo-sphere
foreigner in Japan, turning Japanese is a process filled with dis-ease which
brings into question sovereign allegiances, concepts of a homeland, civic and
cultural belonging. This dis-ease should be a location and process of
possibility, creativity and exploration yet is frequently hampered by cultural chauvinism and trapped within primitive intellectual frameworks of binary
cultural comparison. The multicultural youth that Jones refer to are living
through this dynamic time, reconfiguring on a personal and intimate level what
it means to be Japanese, what it means to be other and what it means to belong
on this archipelago in the twenty-first century.